Umm, wrong.Of course the risk pools are separate, that is why a group health insurance policy will always be cheaper than the same policy that is sold in the individual market. Jackie's cost went up because most health insurance companies are selling health insurance in both markets (for accounting purposes in a different division). The increased risk in the individual market has an effect on the gross profit of a health insurance company that is doing business in that market. The health insurance companies accountants know where the increased cost is coming from. In order to maintain the same profit level the cost of all products sold will go up. United Health Care and Aetna reduced the number of states that they were selling individual plans in because of unbalanced risk pools (that they did not think would get better). Prior to 2010 Jackie's insurance cost was not going up at the rate that it is going up now. What changed? In 2010 the ACA became a law.
Individually purchased health insurance is in a totally and legally separated risk pool than employer group health plans.
But thank you for causing me to get my first laugh of the day.
Group policy cost is up due to health care costs.
Individual policy costs are up even more, due to that, plus the inclusion of high risk folks in the pool.
And for your post just above, why should taxpayer dollars pay for someones health insurance?
That's a huge issue that you're ignoring.
Here's the rest of my bit,
My two closest hospitals do not deal with the Obamacrap insurance. Why: The insurance reimbursement offers do not cover actual costs. I have a bunch of clients at one and a few friends at the other. Similar to myself they are all thankful that their employer has group insurance and can pretty much drive to any hospital, or doctor, they wish.
As Jackie mentions at post 3, employer's that have group plans have had premium issues also. Luckily, a decent employer realizes the value of long term employees.
Yes, the added high risk individual mandate has sent the experience rating through the roof. Yes, some insurance cos think that they can mandate reimbursement rates. But when a large professionally run operation (hospital) says no more bullshit and tells insurance cos to get stiffed on the individual plans, and when one of the largest primary insurance company for individual policies pulls out of most everywhere for individual policies (Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield) the failure verdict is in.
Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
So 10 milion more people got health insurance than before. At what cost? Bilions of dollars? Tens of billions? Hundreds of billions? How much does that come out to per person? More than enough to give each of those people gold plated coverage with a flex account for day to day needs. Giving each person a high deductible with catestrophic insurance would have been far cheaper and with less red tape. Obamacare is going to go down as one of the biggest boondoggles and errors in this country's history. Originally Posted by the_real_BarleycornThe ACA has two parts. Individual private plans sold on the government exchange and the expanded Medicaid. Twenty Million more people became insured, 10 million from the exchanges and 10 million from the Expanded Medicaid ( 31 states took the expanded Medicaid deal with the Fed Gov and 19 did not).
Of course the risk pools are separate, Originally Posted by flghtr65Then why do you keep mashing the different profit centers together? Insurance cos don't blend anything over different plans. State laws requires separation of rates specific to each plan.
I don't have time to get into the rest of your conversation. Originally Posted by flghtr65
Of course the risk pools are separate, Originally Posted by flghtr65Then why do you keep mashing the different profit centers together? Insurance cos don't blend anything over different plans which are the risk pools, etc. State laws requires separation of rates specific to each plan.
I don't have time to get into the rest of your conversation. Originally Posted by flghtr65
Then why do you keep mashing the different profit centers together? Insurance cos don't blend anything over different plans which are the risk pools, etc. State laws requires separation of rates specific to each plan.This is not Accounting 101. There is no need to get into that kind of detail. The bottom line is before the ACA became law people who had pre-existing conditions or who were already sick could not purchase a health insurance policy in the individual market. If your fasting Glucose was > 220 milligrams/ml, no health insurance company would sell you a health insurance policy (you were deemed to high a risk).
Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
no, not by 2018; by 2019. Originally Posted by dilbert firestormNot unless the Senate has more republicans get elected who do not care about the Expanded Medicaid in their state ( which is why the Senators from Maine and Alaska voted against the skinny repeal and the very last bill that was up for a vote). Currently the Senate has 52 republicans and 48 democrats. If it stays like that repeal and replace won't work in 2019 either.
Everyone should have health insurance, a young person can get sick ( the risk is not as high as older person). The fact is before the ACA became law 82% of the population had insurance now it's 92%. That is an increase of 10%. I don't think the USA needs a single payer system. However, group health insurance from the employer needs to be supplemented with something for the individual market. Before the ACA was passed there were to many uninsured people who wanted health insurance. Originally Posted by flghtr65So you think that the answer is to FORCE everyone to get that health insurance via taxing them/fining them if they don't get it?
Do you want FEMA to continually subsidize the Flood Insurance industry in this region?No. Just like i hate it when those in tornado alley get hit time and time again, and expect FEMA to pay them to rebuild..
So you think that the answer is to FORCE everyone to get that health insurance via taxing them/fining them if they don't get it? Originally Posted by garhkalIf the government is going to ask the Health Insurance companies to sell health insurance to people who "ARE ALRADY SICK" then yes, low risk as well as high risk people need to be insured. The health insurance companies would simply go out of business if a majority of their customers are already sick. No insurance company will make a profit on a negative risk pool.
the 2018 math doesn't favor senate democrats as they have a lot of seats to defend. DNC at this point is useless.btw, forgot to mention this.
I don't know how many pick ups republicans will get, but its likely they'll get at least 2 - 4 seats with a 54/56 - 46/44 math. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
You keep beating your head against a scheme that the original "architects" never expected to work .... without government subsidies .... because every friggin' one of them wanted a "one-payer" system so they wanted to get companies and people dependent upon taxpayer money to get coverage and keep it .... KNOWING that the system would collapse in time on its own weight! Originally Posted by LexusLoverThe reason the subsidy is needed is because the government is asking the health insurance companies to sell health insurance policies to people "WHO ARE ALREADY SICK". This alone is driving up cost for a health insurance company to conduct business. So, prior to 2010 before the ACA became law, health insurance companies simply did not sell health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions or people who were already sick in the Individual market.